The
"no Boeing hit the Pentagon" claim is the most important and
widespread 9/11 hoax. It may have been set up before the
event since seizing of surveillance camera videos within minutes of the
crash. It is extremely unlikely that the conspirators who allowed (and
assisted) 9/11 would not have taken care to create misdirecting hoaxes
before the "attack," since they are very aware that large segments
of the population would have suspicions about the events and therefore
they would "need" to disrupt skeptical inquiry with red herrings,
hoaxes, false dichotomies, etc.

This hoax is based on misrepresentation of photos taken shortly after
the crash, ignoring of physical evidence and documented reports from hundreds
of eyewitnesses who saw the plane. There is NO credible, verifiable
evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied "theories"
pretending that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, and
therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. See www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details.

It was first floated in early October 2001 by French author Thierry
Meyssan and US War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Monsieur Meyssan
started a webpage that suggested a plane did not hit the Pentagon on October
7, and Rumsfeld gave an interview to Parade
magazine on October 12 where he said a "missile" hit the
Pentagon. That "missile" quote was then used by many no plane
advocates as part of the campaign to draw attention to this claim. Meyssan
went on to create the "Hunt the Boeing" website and then published
two books "The Horrifying Fraud" (published in English as "9/11
The Big Lie") and Pentagate. These books have been translated into
a total of 28 languages, which ensures that they are the dominant version
of the claim suggesting complicity or conspiracy that is seen around the
world.

On September 4, 2004, two months before the pseudo Presidential election,
Parade magazine claimed that this quote was a mis-statement and the sole
source for the no plane hoaxes, thus dismissing 9/11 "truth"
to an audience of millions of voters.

The biggest claim for the no plane hoax is that the "hole"
in the facade of the Pentagon was supposedly too small to have been created
by a 757. Many of these claims state that photos taken during the half
hour between the crash and the collapse of that part of the building show
a hole merely 16 to 18 feet across. However, those photos have most of
the damage obscured by firefighting foam and smoke -- the full hole was
about 90 feet wide, and additional damage (from the wingtips) is visible
for tens of feet beyond the hole. The impact on the outside of the building
was the size and shape of the cross-section of a 757.

Perhaps the most intriguing claim from those who cling to the "no
plane" claim is the fact that the Pentagon is hiding footage from
the video surveillance cameras that filmed the event constitutes evidence
that something other than Flight 77 hit the building. This suppression
of evidence shows foreknowledge (since FBI agents who seized the film
were immediately able to grab the videos), but not "no plane."
Hotel workers who watched "their" video before it was seized
saw the plane. And the hundreds of commuters and other bystanders who
were in the area also saw the plane. The video is probably being withheld
in a form of "reverse psychology" to get the skeptics to think
the Pentagon is hiding something when they are not, which is needed to
keep this hoax alive. Some 9/11 activists who disbelieve the "no
plane" stuff think the Pentagon is planning to release "newly
discovered" video of the plane hitting the building to discredit
9/11 truth, but it is more likely that they are enjoying the spectacle
of the activists discrediting themselves and 9/11 complicity in general.
More important, they understand that if the "no plane" claims
are extinguished, most of those focused on the "Pentagate" will
shift their attention toward real evidence of complicity that the "no
plane" stuff distracts from.

The eyewitnesses who had a good view of the event are unified in their
reporting -- they saw a large, twin engine jet. Some had better views
than others, some saw the crash, some had the final moment obscured from
their vantage point. Some were stuck in traffic on nearby roads, others
were outside. Some were military officials, others include cab drivers,
ordinary commuters and even a Unitarian minister (a cross section of people
normally found in northern Virginia during rush hour). Some hoaxers claim
that the eyewitnesses are not reliable, and the "physical evidence"
should be used instead -- except the physical evidence shows that Flight
77 definitely hit the Pentagon.

Hundreds (if not more) people saw the plane, and hundreds more participated
in the cleanup and saw plane debris and bodies of the passengers. It is
ridiculous to think that everyone in the vicinity (including the rush
hour traffic) was somehow an agent or dupe of the "inside job"
conspirators -- that would have expanded the needed size of the conspiracy
to absurd levels, and the insinuation has helped ensure that the eyewitnesses,
their families, friends, co-workers, etc. think that 9/11 skeptics are
rude, insulting and generally making up nonsense. Cui bono? Who benefits?

Newsweek reported a few weeks after 9/11 that the "black boxes"
from the plane were found, and that data would indicate how the plane
was steered in its final moments in an incredible spiral dive into the
nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon.
The alleged hijacker, Mr. Hani Hanjour, flunked out of flight school and
clearly did not have the skills to perform that maneuver. The fact that
the plane flew around the Pentagon, past Donald Rumsfeld's office, past
the National Military Command Center, and struck the least populated part
suggests that whoever was at the controls wanted to ensure the minimal
level of casualties. Would a "terrorist" have chosen to fly
this way? Even an expert pilot would have had a hard time doing this.
This is strong circumstantial evidence for remote
control technology. Proving its use is probably impossible, but the
technology is commercially available.This suggests that remote control
technology of some sort was actually used to hijack the plane, and that
the role of the "hijackers" may merely have been that of patsies.
The black boxes would confirm or refute this theory, but most 9/11 "conspiracy"
investigators have fixated on the fleeting hope that the surveillance
videos would be released (which would merely prove the obvious) while
ignoring the hidden data that could actually prove something.

The "no plane" hoax discredited claims of complicity inside
the Beltway among the general public and the political and military elites.
Washington, DC voted 90% against Bush in 2004, and Arlington County (where
the Pentagon is located) is the most Democratic constituency in the Commonwealth
of Virginia. (The Republicans in the DC area are more concentrated in
Fairfax County and other outer suburbs, especially those outside the Capitol
Beltway.)

This hoax created a false dichotomy between "no plane" and
"no complicity" when neither is true.

It is not a coincidence that many supporters of
the official "surprise attack" story focus exclusively on the
"no plane" theories when smearing 9/11 skeptics. The "no
plane at the Pentagon" has been the most successful disinformation
meme used against the 9/11 truth movement, which distracts from the fact
the Pentagon was hit in the mostly empty part,
why the Air Force did not defend its own headquarters and the roles of the multiple war games run
by the military and intelligence agencies that morning.

Flight
11crashed into
North Tower
(first to be hit)
8:46 am

Due to the success of the "no plane at Pentagon"
claim, several successor stories were created to deny the other crashes
but none were as popular as the original hoax. The first of these was the idea that a plane did not really hit the North Tower, but was really
a missile camoflaged by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane. This
bizarre creation came from a website called "the webfairy,"
and took advantage of the fact that there is only one, low quality video
publicly available of the North Tower attack. This hoax is easily disproved
by the most obvious "physical evidence" - the hole in the side
of the North tower was the size of a 767.

The "no plane at the towers" campaign didn't fly, partially because
the idea for the missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane at
the North Tower is ridiculous and was of limited utility
in discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. It is probable that this wasn't
intended to attract supporters, but merely make 9/11 skeptics look silly.

The next version of "no plane" was
a claim that the plane that hit the South Tower was swapped in mid-flight with
military plane that crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under
the plane that fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it.
Variations on the "pod" is that it was a bomb or perhaps a remote
controlled flight system. (Of course, none of the pod people can explain why the military conspirators wouldn't have merely placed these
devices in the plane itself, or why the plane would be unable to penetrate the
towers without first firing a missile. It is amazing how much time can be spent
refuting this endless flood of nonsense, which is probabaly the purpose behind
this propaganda.) The "pod" plane claims have not had substantial
impact, since they are strange, based on fuzzy pictures and have been clearly
refuted by the 9/11 truth movement - the pod is merely a carefully chosen photo
of the normal "fairing" bulge between the wing and the fuselage. (It
would not be surprising to see "no building" theories as part of this
information warfare attack.)

A fall back argument from this distraction effort is the claim
that the planes that hit the towers were smaller than 767s, implying
some sort of plane substitution in mid air (and therefore 9/11 was an
inside job). Again, this claim is easily debunked by looking at the impact
holes, which were the size and shape of a cross-section of a 767. The
most widely quoted advocate of this "smaller plane" claim is
Bush administration veteran Morgan Reynolds, who has echoed this "no
767" claim in published articles, newspaper interviews and public
speeches. A review of his writings is at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html

Perhaps the most subtle, and important disinformation around the attacks
on the towers are the claims that "the Jews were all warned
to stay away from the WTC."

While it is true that Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11, and
probably was involved at some level as a subcontractor, this
story has been the single best method of discrediting 9/11 skeptics to
the public, especially in New York City, where about one third
of the citizens are Jewish. This story has been especially popular in
the Arab world, as it plays into the known duplicities of the Israeli
and US governments, and helps absolve that community of any possible psychological
complicity in the events.Worse, it has brought out a small parade
of anti-semites and neo-Nazi holocaust deniers which serves the interests of those who want to separate the 9/11
skeptics from the US public.

It is possible that the Israelis were pretending to be involved via the "dancing Israelis" filming
the burning towers (who were arrested on the New Jersey side of the Hudson
after outraged bystanders noted they were taking films and acting happy
about the tragedy). Whatever the precise role that the Israeli government
played in 9/11, "dancing Israelis" story was spread widely across
the internet. Perhaps it was merely bait to ensure the anti-semites would
be seen as the main questioners of the official story of 9/11. Perhaps
Israel helped monitor the "hijackers" and performed other
roles.

This website has been smeared by a couple of internet personas as a Zionist
front for daring to suggest any of this. Fascist language is about psychology,
not facts. A quick look at www.oilempire.us/israel.html will show how this smear campaign is ridiculous.

Flight
175crashed into
South Tower
9:03 am

The pod is just a photo of a 767 "fairing" - the bulge between
the wing and fuselage.

The third "no plane" claim stated that the
plane that hit the South Tower was swapped in mid-flight with military
plane that crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod"
under the plane that fired a missile at the building just before crashing
into it.

The "pod" hoax seemed to have been test-marketed in 2003 on
obscure websites in England and Spain. But the hoax got a much bigger
promotional effort in mid-2004, shortly after the International Inquiry
into 9/11 in San Francisco and as the "election" campaign entered
full steam. A website called "letsroll911" started up with "new
video footage" claiming to show a missile fired from the plane into
the South Tower, but without presenting any documentation to prove that
this footage was not merely manipulated with digital photographic software
such as "Photoshop." Without any "chain of custody"
this "evidence" is useless and irrelevant -- and any "new
footage" magically appearing years after the event must be considered
bogus until proven authentic.

One consequence of the staged timing of the tower attacks is that the
second crash was seen and photographed by countless people from every
possible perspective. If there had been a missile fired at the WTC, or
an anomaly on the plane that suggested plane swapping, it would have been
revealed shortly afterwards. (This is a reason why the "no plane
hit the Pentagon" claims are not true -- too many people saw it happen
to believe that it did not happene.)

While the footage of the "missile" looked fake, the "pod"
claim was much more subtle. It was not added to the photos of Flight 175
-- it was merely a carefully chosen image of the normal "fairing"
connecting the wing to the fuselage.

A film focused on the "pod" claim released in the summer of
2004 called "911: In Plane Site"
tacitly admitted that the "pod" was really just a picture of
the fairing. Shortly before its release, a participant in the "911
Truth Alliance" email list posted a photo of a 757 showing the bulge
between the wing and fuselage, noting that the "pod" claim was
not true. The producers of this movie chose the exact same photo (of all
of the photos ever taken of Boeings) to use as part of a montage on the
cover of their DVD. A bad joke "hidden in plain sight."

Some 9/11 truth activists started calling this campaign an effort of
"pod people," an analogy to the movie "Invasion of the
Body Snatchers," a science fiction story about alien invasion of
the United States (thought by some to be a parable for anti-communist fears of subversives overtaking the country, or perhaps
a parable about anti-communist paranoia). In that film, the aliens emerged
from "pods" and then took over normal humans, who were then
converted into aliens yet looked normal on the outside.

The "parallel 9/11 movement" that emerged to challenge the
"mainstream" 9/11 truth movement for control of the terms of
debate parallels the "pod people" from the "Body Snatchers"
film. This parallel effort appears to most people to be part of the same
movement as the 9/11 truth movement. However, this parallel effort avoids
the primary issues raised by 9/11 truth activists and writers in favor
of speculations and photographic misinterpretations such as the "pod").

The pod campaign got some traction -- more than the "webfairy"
theory, but much less than the "Pentagate" claims. In Plane
Site was moderately effective at disrupting unity among the 9/11 truth
activists, with some thinking it to be a sincere effort (even if some
of the claims were incorrect), and others pointing out that it was mostly
disinformation.

In March, 2005, Popular Mechanics published a front-page story about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories
that began with the pod hoax. That article mixed exposure of fake claims
with a couple of real pieces of evidence while ignoring most of the best
evidence for complicity.

A couple minor variations on the pod hoax are that it was not firing
missiles, but was really a bomb or perhaps a remote controlled flight
system (if the planes were remote controlled, the altered navigational
systems would have been made in or near the cockpit - this claim is a
means to discredit the probable reality of remote control on 9/11). None
of the pod people suggested why the military conspirators wouldn't have
merely placed these devices in the plane itself, why no one noticed the
pod and/or missile until they pointed it out, or why the plane would have
been unable to penetrate the towers without first firing a missile.

It is amazing how much time can be spent refuting this endless flood
of nonsense, which is probably the purpose for this propaganda.

Perhaps one day there will be "no building" theories offered
as part of this information warfare attack.

Flight
93crashed in
Pennsylvania
10:06 am

cloud from the crash of Flight 93

The official story of Flight 93 is that the heroic passengers
brought down the plane to spare the country the tragedy of a fourth attack,
a tremendous sacrifice to save others. However, while it seems true that
the passengers were revolting against their hijackers, the evidence shows
that Flight 93 was actually shot down. Debris from the plane was spread
out over 8 miles, which suggests major trauma to the plane while it was
still in the air. Some media coverage of this crash in the first couple
days strongly suggested a shoot-down, most of this is archived at the
website www.flight93crash.com

It is probable that most citizens, regardless of their political philosophies,
would have been able to accept the sad necessity to shoot down the fourth
plane to avert a worse tragedy -- if the pilots were dead and the passengers
doomed, the shoot down could have been easily justified to a traumatized
nation. While it is easy to suggest that the "heroes of 9/11"
story was a much happier message to tell the public, there are deeper
reasons to cover up the shoot down.

The most critical issue that would be raised by admitting to the shoot
down is why Flight 77 was not intercepted. Even if one believes the official
story that 9/11 was a complete surprise, the fact is at 9:03 am, when
the South Tower was hit, no one in the air defense system could have had
any ambiguity about what was going on. Flight 77 was over the Ohio / West
Virginia border at this point and was making a 180 degree turn to fly
back toward the National Capitol, which would have caused the air defenses
to "scramble" to intercept. There is no excuse for the fact
that supersonic jet interceptors were not "scrambled" to investigate
what this plane was doing, and defend the Capitol from attack. If necessary,
most of the area that Flight 77 crossed between 9:03 and 9:38 (when it
hit the Pentagon) was very rural and forested, and a shoot down would
have posed minimal risk for "collateral damage" on the ground.

There are several theories on why Flight 93 was shot down. Which of these
theories, or combinations, are true would require a full scale investigation,
including access to the black boxes, radar tapes, classified communications,
satellite imagery and electronic interceptions, and other evidence that
is unlikely to ever be made public.

the military took that long to get their fighter planes ready, and
Flight 93 was the first plane they were able to stop. This theory does
not adequately explain why the military was not able to prevent Flight
77 from hitting the Pentagon, since 77 was at the Ohio / West Virginia
border at 9:03 am, when the second tower was hit (and the entire air
defense system knew that an attack was underway).

the passengers were about to regain control of the plane, and one
passenger was a pilot who might have been able to safely land the plane,
something the official conspirators could not allow, since this would
have resulted in live hijackers who would have been interrogated. This
theory suggests that the shootdown was the 9/11 equivalent of Jack Ruby's
shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, covering up evidence that the conspirators
could not allow to be cross-examined.

the story of the heroic passengers was always an intentional part
of the psychological manipulation of the 9/11 plot. Once the Pentagon
had been hit, there was no need for Flight 93, since the goals of the
attack had already been met. The "let's roll" story was a
"Wag the Dog" propaganda that was a part of the overall psychological
operation (psyop).

The hijackers were planning to go to Three Mile Island (this has
been floated in a few places, although without actual evidence), which
would have been an unmanageable disaster much worse than 9/11.

Flight 93 was late taking off, and missed the window of opportunity
to reach Washington before the air defense system was mobilized. After
the Pentagon was hit about 9:38 am, the military defense of the national
capital area went into full force. It is theoretically possible that
the original 9/11 plan was to have all four (or more?) planes hit their
targets nearly simultaneously, but the delays (especially Flight 93)
made it impossible to allow the last plane to reach DC, and therefore
it had to be shot down, since the longer the lack of response of the
Air Force, the more suspicious the event would become.

Flight 93 hoaxes

The first hoax about Flight 93 was that the phone calls from the passengers
to their relatives were faked. These calls told the passengers about the
WTC crashes, who then decided to attack the hijackers. Ignoring the reality
that modern planes have "air phones" that explicitly are designed
to work on planes, the evidence for "no cell phone calls are possible"
is ambiguous at best. The website physics911 seems to be the source for
these claims, which were concocted by a Canadian physicist who staged
an experiment to replicate cell-phone reception in a small plane flying
in Canada. A real experiment to prove the calls could not have been made
would have needed to replicate the locations and altitudes in the United
States (since cell phone reception is completely dependent on location).
Physics911 also pushes the no plane hit Pentagon hoax and has promoted
the "pod."

While it is true that fake audio and video can be created with sophisticated
software systems, this is probably the meme most
calculated to alienate "9/11 researchers" from the family members. It is unlikely that a spouse would not know they were having a phone conversation
with their partner, and the extra complication to the operation makes
this theory one of the least credible. There is enough provable evidence
of official complicity without claiming that 9/11 family members really
didn't talk with their loved ones on the phone - at least for those sincerely
interested in the truth.

Physics911 also promoted a science fiction story claiming that the passengers
from all four planes were all brought to a single site (a secret military
base) and then all relocated to a single plane, which was then crashed
to dispose of the evidence. This fantasy has zero evidence for it. It
would have massively complicated the operation for no benefit. It is likely
that the only "plane swap" that happened was tampering with
the navigation system to ensure the "success" of the attacks,
not any substitution of one plane for another.

In September 2004, the American Free
Press newspaper published an article implying that there wasn't a
plane crash in Pennsylvania (even though a lot of people saw and heard
it happen). This publication is part of an ultra right wing media group
that also publishes the "Barnes Review," a Holocaust Denial
publication that has praised Hitler. AFP / Barnes, by their own admission,
works closely with KKK leader David Duke. Perhaps their motto should be
"No Planes on 9/11 and No Gas Chambers in the Holocaust." The
AFP acronym is also used by Agence-France Press, one of the world's leading
media organizations, which could cause confusion and undeserved legitimacy
for the American Free Press, which promotes (and creates) hoaxes that
misdirect serious investigation into 9/11 complicity.

There is also a hoax that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland during the attacks,
a variation on the plane substitution claims.